Subway Sandwich.

Changing the subject I see.

Interracial marriage is a behavior. Same-sex marriage is a behavior.

Race is a inherent trait. Gender and sexual orientation are inherent traits.

The bans on same-gender marriage may apply to all, but then so did the bans on interracial marriage - blacks couldn't marry whites and whites couldn't marry blacks. In that limited view of reality, it WAS equal.

The point of this is to demonstrate how ridiculous the argument that "gays already have equal rights" is. You could have said the same thing about black people prior to Loving v Virginia. It's a phoney argument.

 

And yet it has also affected you enough to make a post about it. Are you gay? If not, then that makes you a hypocrite. Unfortunately, you have set yourself up here to be one of the two by default.

 

It seems that you are missing the point of this little metaphor!

Come on, Unifier. . .I thought you had enough sense of humor and creativity to "step back" and look at an issue without making it personal!

Sorry. . BIG FAIL!

OBVIOUSLY Logician was presenting a METAPHORE. . .not a true story!

RELAX. . breathe deeply, and start again. And if you feel a little foolish for your overreaction and lack of understanding of the meaning of the OP. . .that will be totally normal and it should subside as soon as you stop taking yourself so seriously and jumping on people while calling them "hypocrites" because YOU don't get the meaning of an OP!

 

My motivation for making a post about this issue is my dislike for discriminatory practices.
As a citizen and a veteran, I believe I have a vested interest in the policies of the government as they pertain to ensuring "We the people" are treated fairly without bias based on religious dogma.

To get a better example of hypocrisy, you need only look in a mirror and see someone who wants certain benefits while denying them to others.

 

Policies which do not affect you any more than they affect those who promote traditional marriage unless you, yourself, are gay. See how that works? You're contradicting yourself.

You're also using a false premise that all support for traditional marriage is based on religion. This seems to be a popular strategy among people who do not want to entertain logical arguments that oppose their own position. You see this a lot in the abortion debate as well. If you can convince yourself that everyone else is just a "religious nut," then you can rationalize that you have a monopoly on reason and thus have no purpose for entertaining a different point of view.

The human mind is a master of rationalization.

Or you could do the same, Mr. "You can't have an opinion because it doesn't affect you, but I can even though it doesn't affect me either."

Unless, of course, you're gay.

 

You raise an interesting perspective, but totally seem to be missing one simple point:
Caring whether or not gay people can get married, and advocating against their rights, causes harm.
Caring whether or not gay people can get married, and advocating for their rights, causes no harm.

Whether or not you care despite not being directly affected isn't the hypocritical part, it's wanting rights that you deny others.

As for "traditional marriage" not being a function of religious beliefs... Can you name a reason why a gay couple shouldn't be afforded the same rights as a straight couple without thumping a Bible? Please keep in mind that there is no fertility test required to get married, and that heterosexual people can get married at an advanced age without issue.

BTW, since it seems to matter to you so much, I'm not gay and have been "straight married" for about 17 years.

 

Oh, I got the metaphor. I was just pointing out that it was inaccurate.

Lol! But go ahead and mock me if it makes you feel better. I'm used to it. Such is the price one pays for spitting on political correctness.

 

I don't care if you spit on political correctness. But it seems to matter, especially if you would like to be the next mod, if you don't spit in the face of posters who try to trigger a fair debate about a subject that you don't seem able to "stand back" about!

This person (Logician) or no one else for that matter, needs to BE an homosexual him/herself in order to be curious about other's ideas about the issue of gay rights, or to support gay rights without for that being accused of being a hypocrite. I am heterosexual, and I fully support gay right. . .nothing to do with political correctness. . .just my conscience and sense of fairness

Once again, you seem to have misunderstood my post. . . nothing to do with "making fun of you," all to do about fairness.

 

C'mon Unifier, please feel free to respond to my last post...
I'd be interested in your insight regarding how it is hypocritical of me to want everyone to have the same rights I enjoy; yet is not hypocritical of you to want to deny others the same rights you enjoy...

I'm equally interested in your secular justification for "traditional marriage" excluding homosexuals...

 

You know what would be best? *f we simply took marriage out of government hands, and passed an ammendment that official names marriage as a civil right of all consneting adults. Any adult could marry any other adult(s).

So, keeping to the subway references. It would be like anti gay people ordering their own sandwiches and stop trying to make everyone else eat them to by passing laws.

 

The problem with your analogy is that gays aren't ordering different sandwiches. Gays are ordering the same sandwich, but the guy in front is demanding that subway serves them a different one.

 

Nah, it's more like the guy in front of him is demanding that the other guy's "sandwich" should not be called a "sandwich", and instead be called something like a "Bread & Fillings Union" while being charged an extra 5% sales tax. Why? Because he added and mustard, and the guy in front hates the taste of mustard, thinks it's gross and weird and should not be called a "sandwich".

 

I do get your point, though (for the purpose of the analogy) I think that gay folks may be ordering slightly different meat.
Still no impact on straight people's sandwiches...

 

If you're right behind the gay sandwich patron then maybe you should reevaluate your current lifestyle...maybe even close enough to be aroused by his cologne...do you look good in pink?

 

No no, it changes the definition of "sandwich" to mean "bread with turkey" or "bread with turkey and/or roast beef". That would be too confusing, so we need to have the new word "Bread & Fillings Union", a specialty item charged 5% more in sales tax and 10% more to handle the overhead in applying a different label to the menu, receipt and advertising. Could just call them both sandwiches, but you know, who compares about simplicity for a substantively identical product.

 

The guy in front is the religious right, demanding that the gays behind him order a different sandwich because they are "different." But maybe he is in the closet--many bigots seem to be in denial.

 

Wow, this was a fun thread to read back.

It's also amusing that all the folks who were warned they were going to be "on the wrong side of history" eventually, have reached that eventuality. Some of the respondents (especially the early ones) are clearly now on the wrong side of history.

 

So? Just because you think it should be called a pizza does not give you the right to force other people to. I'll call it whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) I want, and you do not like it kiss my ass.

 

You do not have to like something, or approve to tolerate it. Just mind your own (*)(*)(*)(*)ing business. That is what tolerate means. It means to let other people do what they want. If it does not effect you, butt out.

 

Being British I demand that Subway stop calling their weird creations sandwiches.

The Earl of Sandwich invented them and only Cheese and Pickle, Ham and Mustard and Cucumber are genuine sandwhiches, all others are against tradition and a perversion.

Tongue in cheek!

Oh I had forgotten that one, and a Tongue sandwich is allowed as well.

 

I went to Subway today to get my favorite sandwich. The guy behind me ordered for me without asking. I was angry because when I said something, he accused me of being sandwichphobic.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you are not talking about marriage but your contract with the State.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be one of those tolerant liberals you are talking about.

 

What a hoot! The gayhadists just dictated the meaning of the word based on ...feelings.

- - - Updated - - -

The real question is who died and made you queen?

 

Nor does morality or tolerance.

 

The new normal.